5 ms·
But in this case, as the eye can't discern any difference (at reasonable distances) - it really is ? I don't get why there is this push - pixels sell I guess.
by nimchimpsky 10y ago
But in this case, as the eye can't discern any difference (at reasonable distances) - it really is ?
I don't get why there is this push - pixels sell I guess.
- Matthias247 10y agoOn Desktop monitors you can still see the difference. I have an 28" UHD screen. It's really nice, and text looks a lot better than on the old FHD screen it replaced. However it still looks a little bit worse than my MacBook Pro Retina screen. Which also makes sense when you compare 155dpi to 230dpi. Whether 8k now is necessary or 6k would be totally sufficient - don't know. But I guess it's easier to sell the double resolution.
- nimchimpsky 10y agoFrom the article "A 4K panel of the same physical size is retina at 25 inches. An 8K panel hits that mark at the one-foot mark, but precious few people use a 32-inch display while sitting just 12 inches from the screen."
- userbinator 10y agoPersonally, I don't really want such a high DPI monitor either, since I use pixel fonts like xterm 6x13 a lot, especially for coding, and they become either unreadably small or blurrily scaled. All antialiasing looks blurry to me, and much of what made me upgrade to an LCD from a CRT many years ago was because they were so sharp you could actually see the corners on the pixels.